logo
Claims that UK spy agencies aided CIA torture after 9/11 to be heard in rare trial

Claims that UK spy agencies aided CIA torture after 9/11 to be heard in rare trial

Yahooa day ago

The UK government's decades-long efforts to keep details of its intelligence agencies' involvement in the CIA's notorious post-9/11 torture programme hidden will face an 'unprecedented' challenge this week as two cases are brought before a secretive court.
The cases, filed by two prisoners held at the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay, will be heard across a rare four-day trial at the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT), which has been investigating claims the UK's intelligence agencies were complicit in their mistreatment.
Starting on Tuesday, the trial will place a spotlight back on what is considered one of British intelligence's darkest chapters, reviving longstanding questions about the extent of the UK's involvement in the CIA's kidnapping and detention of terrorism suspects in a global network of secret prisons known as black sites.
The hearings begin six years after ministers shelved a judicial inquiry into alleged UK complicity, which David Cameron, the prime minister who ordered it, once said was necessary as 'the longer these questions remain unanswered, the bigger the stain on our reputation as a country'.
The claims before the IPT have been brought by Mustafa al-Hawsawi, who is accused by the US of aiding the hijackers behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is alleged to have plotted al-Qaida's bombing of an American naval ship in 2000.
Captured by the CIA in the early 2000s, the men were rendered between black sites, where they were systematically tortured and subjected to brutal and degrading treatment. Methods included what the CIA referred to as 'rectal feeding', a form of sexual assault according to medical experts.
Related: Rectal rehydration and broken limbs: the grisliest findings in the CIA torture report
After several years in CIA detention, Hawsawi and Nashiri – who were among a group of approximately 17 of the CIA's 'high-value detainees' – were transferred to Guantánamo Bay in 2006. They have been there since. Both men face charges carrying the death penalty, though neither of their cases at a special US military court have yet gone to trial.
Lawyers for the men have told the IPT there is credible evidence to infer that UK spy agencies, including MI5 and MI6, unlawfully 'aided, abetted, encouraged, facilitated, procured and/or conspired' with the US in their torture and mistreatment.
Working in secret, the IPT has been examining the allegations over the past two years. Led by a senior judge, the tribunal is an unusual court that can adopt an inquisitorial process and has unique powers to obtain classified information from the intelligence agencies.
So far, the government has successfully prevented any findings from the investigation being disclosed, even to the complainants' lawyers. But the trial is expected to compel the government to confront, in open court, uncomfortable legal questions about what constitutes complicity in torture.
'This level of judicial scrutiny is unprecedented,' said Chris Esdaile, a senior legal adviser at Redress, an NGO that works with torture victims and which represents Hawsawi. 'Until now, efforts to lift the veil of secrecy and consider the full extent of the UK's involvement in the CIA's black site programme have been thwarted.'
When Cameron announced the judge-led public inquiry into allegations of UK complicity in the mistreatment of terrorism suspects in 2010, he told parliament: 'Let me state clearly: we need to know the answers.'
Nine years later, the government abandoned that commitment. This was despite parliament's intelligence and security committee concluding that British intelligence officers had been involved in 'inexcusable' activities, including hundreds of cases in which prisoners were mistreated, and scores of rendition operations.
Related: Criticism mounts over UK's post-9/11 role in torture and rendition
Publishing its findings in 2018, the committee emphasised its work had been 'terminated prematurely' due in part to obstruction by ministers and spy chiefs. It insisted there were 'questions and incidents' that 'remain unanswered and uninvestigated'.
Among its findings, however, were key details that Hawsawi and Nashiri's lawyers used to persuade the IPT to investigate. Crucially, the committee had highlighted instances in which MI6 had supplied questions to be used in CIA interrogations of two other high-value detainees it knew were being mistreated.
On the eve of the trial, evidence has now emerged that in 2003, while Hawsawi was held by the US in a black site in Afghanistan where he was repeatedly tortured, CIA headquarters sent a cable to interrogators, telling them Hawsawi should be 'pressed' for information about alleged terrorist activity in the UK.
The cable, which Hawsawi's lawyers are understood to have shared with the IPT, was declassified by the US in 2017 but only recently identified by Unredacted, a research unit at the University of Westminster that investigates UK national security practices.
Its director, Sam Raphael, who has spent years researching the torture programme, said the cable suggested there had been a 'clear interest in interrogating Hawsawi about specific UK-based operatives and plots at a time when he was being subjected to the worst kind of treatment'.
He added: 'It raises an obvious and important question the tribunal should address: was British intelligence, which we know was directly and deeply involved in post-9/11 prisoner abuse, feeding the questions to the CIA?'
The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know.
If you have something to share on this subject you can contact us confidentially using the following methods.
Secure Messaging in the Guardian app
The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said.
If you don't already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select 'Secure Messaging'.
SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and post
See our guide at theguardian.com/tips for alternative methods and the pros and cons of each.
A spokesperson for the government declined to comment on the claims before the IPT. The government previously said that it 'does not confirm or deny allegations, assertions or speculation about the activities of UK intelligence agencies'.
• This article was amended on 9 June 2025. The number of 'high-value detainees' at Guantánamo in 2006 was about 17, not 120 as an earlier version said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots
LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots

The images of cars set ablaze, protesters tossing rocks at police and officers firing nonlethal rounds and tear gas at protesters hearkens back to the last time a president sent the National Guard to respond to violence on Los Angeles streets. But the unrest during several days of protests over immigration enforcement is far different in scale from the 1992 riots that followed the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to call in the National Guard after requests from Mayor Tom Bradley and Gov. Pete Wilson. After the current protests began Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines despite strident opposition from Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump cited a legal provision to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit Monday saying Trump had overstepped his authority. Outrage over the verdicts on April 29, 1992 led to nearly a week of widespread violence that was one of the deadliest riots in American history. Hundreds of businesses were looted. Entire blocks of homes and stores were torched. More than 60 people died in shootings and other violence, mostly in South Los Angeles, an area with a heavily Black population at the time. Unlike the 1992 riots, protests have mainly been peaceful and been confined to a roughly five-block stretch of downtown LA, a tiny patch in the sprawling city of nearly 4 million people. No one has died. There's been vandalism and some cars set on fire but no homes or buildings have burned. At least 50 people have been arrested for everything from failing to follow orders to leave to looting, assault on a police officer and attempted murder for tossing a Molotov cocktail. Several officers have had minor injuries and protesters and some journalists have been struck by some of the more than 600 rubber bullets and other 'less-lethal' munitions fired by police. The 1992 uprising took many by surprise, including the Los Angeles Police Department, but the King verdict was a catalyst for racial tensions that had been building in the city for years. In addition to frustration with their treatment by police, some directed their anger at Korean merchants who owned many of the local stores. Black residents felt the owners treated them more like shoplifters than shoppers. As looting and fires spread toward Koreatown, some merchants protected their stores with shotguns and rifles.

It Sure Seems Like One Key GOP Vote Regrets Appointing RFK Jr.
It Sure Seems Like One Key GOP Vote Regrets Appointing RFK Jr.

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

It Sure Seems Like One Key GOP Vote Regrets Appointing RFK Jr.

Senator Bill Cassidy promised the American people that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would not make any changes to the CDC's vaccine advisory committee when he cast his decisive confirmation vote for the HHS secretary. But on Monday RFK Jr. scrapped the board entirely, leaving Cassidy scrambling to explain himself and his vote. 'Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,' Cassidy posted on X after Kennedy explained his rationale in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.' When asked what he said specifically to Kennedy to 'ensure' that the immunization advisory committee wouldn't be run by anti-vaxers, Cassidy went mum. 'I'd rather just characterize it as: we had a conversation,' he told Semafor's Burgess Everett on Tuesday. When Burgess asked if Cassidy was 'still comfortable' with voting to confirm RFK Jr. in February, Cassidy replied 'I'd rather not comment on that.' During the confirmation process Cassidy explicitly guaranteed that 'If confirmed, [RFK Jr.] will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes.' Either Cassidy was lying, or RFK Jr. was lying to Cassidy. Now all of the other promises that Cassidy made on RFK's behalf—like not making false claims about vaccines causing autism, or even appearing before Congress on a quarterly basis—are moot. Cassidy claimed that he studied his decision to confirm Kennedy 'exhaustively' and took it 'very seriously.' It's clear that Cassidy's words meant nothing as Kennedy guts a key institution of our national health apparatus.

LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots

time42 minutes ago

LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots

The images of cars set ablaze, protesters tossing rocks at police and officers firing nonlethal rounds and tear gas at protesters hearkens back to the last time a president sent the National Guard to respond to violence on Los Angeles streets. But the unrest during several days of protests over immigration enforcement is far different in scale from the 1992 riots that followed the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to call in the National Guard after requests from Mayor Tom Bradley and Gov. Pete Wilson. After the current protests began Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines despite strident opposition from Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump cited a legal provision to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit Monday saying Trump had overstepped his authority. Outrage over the verdicts on April 29, 1992 led to nearly a week of widespread violence that was one of the deadliest riots in American history. Hundreds of businesses were looted. Entire blocks of homes and stores were torched. More than 60 people died in shootings and other violence, mostly in South Los Angeles, an area with a heavily Black population at the time. Unlike the 1992 riots, protests have mainly been peaceful and been confined to a roughly five-block stretch of downtown LA, a tiny patch in the sprawling city of nearly 4 million people. No one has died. There's been vandalism and some cars set on fire but no homes or buildings have burned. At least 50 people have been arrested for everything from failing to follow orders to leave to looting, assault on a police officer and attempted murder for tossing a Molotov cocktail. Several officers have had minor injuries and protesters and some journalists have been struck by some of the more than 600 rubber bullets and other 'less-lethal' munitions fired by police. The 1992 uprising took many by surprise, including the Los Angeles Police Department, but the King verdict was a catalyst for racial tensions that had been building in the city for years. In addition to frustration with their treatment by police, some directed their anger at Korean merchants who owned many of the local stores. Black residents felt the owners treated them more like shoplifters than shoppers. As looting and fires spread toward Koreatown, some merchants protected their stores with shotguns and rifles.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store